Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper introduces X-RAY, a system for analyzing LLM reasoning by probing their ability to extract and utilize underlying problem structure. X-RAY generates formalized probes with controlled structural variations in math, physics, and chemistry problems, allowing for precise isolation and calibration of reasoning capabilities. Experiments reveal that LLMs are more robust to constraint refinement than solution-space restructuring, and that X-RAY can differentiate models that perform similarly on standard benchmarks.
LLMs struggle more with restructuring solution spaces than refining constraints, revealing a key asymmetry in their reasoning abilities that standard benchmarks miss.
Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising performance, yet their ability to reason remains poorly understood. Existing evaluations largely emphasize task-level accuracy, often conflating pattern matching with reasoning capability. We present X-RAY, an explainable reasoning analysis system that maps the LLM reasoning capability using calibrated, formally verified probes. We model reasoning capability as a function of extractable \textit{structure}, operationalized through formal properties such as constraint interaction, reasoning depth, and solution-space geometry. X-Ray generates probes via formal tools with controlled structural variations, enabling precise isolation of incremental structural information through formal calibration and verification. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs on problems ranging from junior-level to advanced in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Our analysis reveals a systematic asymmetry in LLM reasoning: models are relatively robust to constraint refinement, where additional conditions shrink an existing solution space, but degrade sharply under solution-space restructuring, where modifications alter the underlying structural form of the solution manifold. Moreover, calibrated formal probes differentiate models that appear indistinguishable on standard benchmarks and reveal failure modes that are structurally interpretable rather than opaque. Beyond evaluation, our framework is contamination-free and supports the training and testing of reasoning models.
